3C 










■W 


f 


\ 





# 











THE 


HISTORY OF LIBFRTY. 


BY 



MARGARET S. PETRIE, 


MAHLIUS, N. Y. 





1874. 




Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1874, by 
MARGARET S, PETRIE, 

in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 





PART FIRST. 


-o- 

WHAT 18 LIBERTY ? 

It Las been said that tbe history of liberty has yet to 
be written, and that from the imperfect knowledge of an¬ 
cient nations and the ever changing forms of govern¬ 
ment, rt'quiring great research and a vast amount of la¬ 
bor, it will be long yet ere the work will be done; but it 
seems to me that as human nature is the same in all 
countries and in all ages, influenced and controlled by 
the same ever recurring principles, so the history of lib¬ 
erty is not so much seen in the progress of governments 
as regards successive time, as in the progress of those 
principles wdiich form the essentials of government and 
which may now be seen in their comparative degrees of 
excellence among the different nations of the earth. 

Is it any wonder the history of that has not been writ¬ 
ten which has so recently been attained ? One must 
reach the mountain top before he can include in his sur¬ 
vey the landscape it commands; a single step short takes 
so much from the completeness of the view. So in the 
history of any principle. It is necessary that it be at¬ 
tained in its fullness before its progressive growth can be 
identified. 

In wrfting the history of liberty, it is not so much the 
ever changing form of governments and our imperfect 



2 


knowledge of ancient nations, in which the difticulty 
consists, as the want of our ability to come in contact 
with their inner life. Whatever of change there may be 
in the earth’s surface, whether of elevation or depres¬ 
sion, whether a swallowing up of what was once visible 
or an upheaving of what wasbefore unknown ; whatever, 
the efiect, the cause is the mighty force within. So 
whether alike in the steady progress of a nation, or in 
its mighty upheavings, that which history records is but 
the effect. The real difficulty in tracing the progress of 
liberty is to judge of that inner life by that which histo¬ 
ry does record. 

There are two facts which, perhaps more than any 
other in the course of the world, seem to us anomalous. 

The first is, the apparent connection between a high 
degree of intelligence as seen in literature, the arts, and 
even to a great degree in government, with refinement of 
manners; the apparent connection of these, especially 
in theory with purity of morals, and the striking con¬ 
trast which the practice of ancient Greece and Rome, 
and that of modern France and Italy, presents. 

The second is, that while Christianity is acknowledged 
to be essential lo liberty, instances exist where those na¬ 
tions or parts of nations in which infidelity prevails, the 
tree of liberty flourishes most luxuriantly ; while in those 
nations or portions of nations which most completely 
accept Revelation, there is the tree of liberty most 
blighted. 

The history of liberty may be said to be included in 
two parallel lines. The first is, the development of the 
principle that a balance of the elements of our nature 
and of government is essential to liberty. The second, 
the history of the progress and adoption of those princi¬ 
ples which can be exercised only when that balance has 
been attained. 

When Madame Roland, on being led to the scaffold. 



uttered the words, “ O Liberty ! Liberty! liow^ many 
crimes have been committed in thy name,” well might 
she have added, ond hom UtfJe is thy vafirre imd^rsfnod. 

There is no word to which greater differences of mean¬ 
ing have been applied than to the Avord liberty. We 
speak of individual liberty and of national liberty. 
However various in form the expression may be, the 
various definitions of individual liberty, with very few 
exceptions, may be included in this : that liberty consists 
in freedom from restraint, in the exercise of natural 
rights, and that as population increases the individual 
surrenders a portion of those rights for the good of so¬ 
ciety. But what are nntnral rights ? Blackstone, in 
liis Commentaries, page 8th of Eights of Things, speaks 
of our “ rational faculties” and our “natural faculties;” 
evidently applying the latter to the faculties included in 
the physidal element of our nature. With all deference, 
I would ask, is this distinction just ? Are not the moral 
and the mental faculties just as much a part of our na¬ 
ture as are the physical faculties If not, at what time 
do they enter in and become part of that nature ? True, 
the nourishment and exercise they require for their de¬ 
velopment are different from those required by the phys¬ 
ical faculties ; but, though latent, they as really*exist in 
infancy as do those physical powers which can only be 
exercised when the growth of the physical nature has 
been attained. May it not be said that this erroneous 
distinction of the elements of man’s nature has been a 
principal cause of the difficulty which |has been ^^felt in 
defining Liberty ? 

It is of course a natural right for us to exercise our 
natural faculties, and when those are considered as inclu¬ 
ded in our physical nature alone, a lack of restraint in 
the exercise of them would be regarded as freedom. 
Perhaps one reason why liberty and freedom came to 


4 


be used synonymously was on account of the servitude 
of the lower classes among ancient nations; when Vjy 
any means they gained their freedom, it was considered 
they had liberty. 

National liberty, as it has been variously defined, maj^ 
be considered under two heads. One, that of independ¬ 
ence of a foreign power; the other, a due observance of 
law under a well regulated monarchy. 

Liberty and independence are words which are often 
applied to nations as parallel and even synonymous, but 
they are as far asunder as the poles. A nation is inde¬ 
pendent when it does not owe allegiance to a foreign 
power ; in other words, when the executive is within its 
own borders, whether that executive be president, king, 
emperor, sultan or tyrant. 

Kussia, when it had its millions of serfs, was inde¬ 
pendent ; France is independent; the United States, 
before the rebellion, were independent, but who would 
say that with slavery they had the fullness of liberty. It 
remains to be seen whether the idea be correct, which so 
generally prevails, that a due observance of law under a 
well regulated monarchy /s Liberty. 


THE NaTUHE and PEOGEEoS OF THE PHYSI¬ 
CAL, THE MOEAL, THE MENTAL 
ELEMENTS OF OLE NATUEE 
AND OF GOYEENMENT. 

Nations are but an aggregate of individuals, so that 
the same elements which most generally predominate in 
the individuals of a nation, will be the predominating 
elements in the government of that nation. As the 
physical, the moral and the mental elements include the 
whole of man’s nature, so do the principles which corre¬ 
spond with these include all that has ever existed in gov¬ 
ernment. 

The physical element in man is his body, which is 
capable not only of receiving impressions and perform¬ 
ing functions peculiar to itself, but is also the medium 
through which the other elements of man’s nature, the 
moral and the mental, act, alike receiving and imparting 
influences. Now when we consider the different govern¬ 
ments that have existed, the most ancient of which we 
have any knowledge, the Eoman—heathen and papal 
equal in their administrative or executive energy—the 
Eastern nations with their enervating civilization, the 
German with its intense nationality, Spain with its con¬ 
servatism, vacillating France, England with its progress¬ 
ive liberalism, the United States with their tendency to 
expansion in all directions, Mexico and the South Amer¬ 
ican States with their ever balancing, China and India 
with their conservative heathenism—all these alike have 
as their basis the physical element, which is the frame 
work of government. 

What then is it which makes the difference between 
these, a difference so great that it is frequently attributed 
to a different fundamental cause. Not only is the funda¬ 
mental principle in all these governments the same, but 
also much that seems antagonistic in each separate gov- 
erjiment as, for instance, aristocracy as conflicting witli 


monarchy. lu countries where slavery exists, the rela¬ 
tion of master and slave is spoken of as opposite in their 
natures, whereas the fundamental element in each is 
identical; so also is that which is spoken of in contrast, 
anarchy and tyranny. Not only so, but also what seems 
if possible still more opposite, barbarism and an enerva¬ 
ting civilization. Whence then the apparent difference ? 
Whence the influence that diffuses those delicate touches 
of light and shade which make it so hard for us at times 
to define their boundaries? 

It must be remembered that the elements of man’s 
nature do not exist separately, but each in connection 
with the others. The bo('y without the soul and mind 
is dead. Whatever may be the nature of the soul after 
death, as long as it animates the body, it can only act iii 
conjunction with it. If it be possible to imagine the 
existence of mind in the abstract, it 'svould then certainly 
be too abstract to act independently. It is only when 
these elements exist in their due proportion that the full 
man is developed. 

Look at all the races and nationalities that have ever 
existed, white and black, with as many shades between 
as possible. Let a person stand in one of the great 
thoroughfares of the commercial centres of the world 
and observe the individuals as they pass, he can tell to a 
certainty whether they are African, German, Irish, 
English, Chinese. Consider also man more particularly 
as regards his moral and mental developments, as a 
Nero and a Howard, a savage and a Lord Chesterfield, 
an idiot and a Newton. 

Think of all the individuals in any one country, how 
each has his identity some tall, some short; some large, 
some small; some honest, others dishonest; some vul¬ 
gar, others refined; some intelligent, others ignorant; 
and so on, in an endless diversity, and then consider 
that one country is but a type of eacdi and every nation 


'1 


that has ever existed, and that this countless multitude 
of differences is but tie effect of a combination in dih 
f:rent proj'ortions of the three elements of man’s nature. 
Knowing all this, can ve wonder at the equally endless 
diversity of phenomena as seen in nations and govern¬ 
ments? Influenced as these elements are by the geog¬ 
raphy of a country, its climate, its association witli 
surrounding nations, we find the combinations of the 
elements of government, instead of being computed by 
the relations of numbers, to be as varied as the combi¬ 
nations of the haleidoscope. 

The physical is not only the most tangible of the 
elements of man’s nature, but it is also that which is the 
first developed. Take any nation of heathens or sav¬ 
ages, or whatever 3011 choose to call them ; no matter 
whether it be ancient barbarians, as the Huns under 
Attila, the Piets and Scots of Britain, the Goths and 
Scandinavians of Northern Europe ; or whether it be the 
natives of the Sandwich Islands, of Madagascar, the 
aborigines of our own continent—no matter in what 
country or in wdiat age of the world, that race is in its 
infancy. Whether that infancy last one year or a thou¬ 
sand years, the principle is the same. 

But wdiat is the order of development? Of all the 
nations that have ever existed, w^e find a belief in a supe¬ 
rior intelligence, w hatever form it may take. Whatever 
the creed may be, the mother instils its belief into the 
mind of her child. As that child advances, its mental 
powers are developed in accordance with the degree of 
development of the minds by which it is surrounded. 
This, and this only, is the order of growth, whether of 
the individual or of the nation, whether in the first age 
of the w^orld or in the last, whether among heathen or 
Christian, whether on the Eastern or the Western con¬ 
tinent. 

As it is of the utmost importance that the order of 


8 


development should be kept in mind, we will analyze it 
a little more closely. 

All know that the physical part of our nature is all 
that has a development in infancy ; true, the moral and 
the mental elements of our nature do then really and 
truly exist, but as yet they are merely latent, they are 
not developed. As the child advances in life, the moral 
element in his nature begins to dawn. He has a con¬ 
sciousness of right and wrong. The elements of some 
belief are instilled into his mind. It is then the mental 
element begins; the nature of his belief l)eing pagan^ 
heathen philosophy, Mohammedanism, Jewish, or some 
one of the different manifestations of the Chiistian 
religion, according to the teachings he may receive. 

Not only does the mental element begin then to influ¬ 
ence the moral element, it also influences the pi'ysical 
element. The child learns that if he puts his hand in 
the fire, it will burn him ; that if he goes out into the 
rain, he will get w^et. He likes such and such articles 
of food, as parched corn with meat or fish roasted on 
sticks or laid on coals, or he eats rats and puppies, or he 
abstains from pork and is careful not to eat flesh with 
the blood thereof, or he eats blood puddings and pork 
and beans ; sleeps on skins of animals spread on the 
ground, on beds with every want of neatness, or in those 
supplied by a true refined taste, and all other of his 
social habits correspond^with’these. 

Having noticed the order of the development of man’s 
nature and of government, let us now examine more 
minutely the peculiar functions of each element.’^ 

The physical element in government is its executive 
principle, that through which government acts, and in 

its relation to the otlier elements of government_the 

moral and the mental—may be compared to the body 
through wliich the mind and soul act. 

Suppose an individual traveling among the Hotten- 


9 


tots, the Esquimaux, the American Indians ; he would 
not hesitate to say that everything he S!?w, their mode 
of dress, the manner ( f preparing their food, their social 
habits, whatever existed as government, partook largely 
of the physical element. Let him pass among what are 
called semi-civilized nations, as the Chinese and Oriental 
nations generally, with their advance in their mode of 
living, their architecture, their government—whatever 
their mode of oiganization, it Avould still be the phvsical 
(9em(']it h{‘would se(^ ; but su])j)ose he visit Egypt in 
the time of the building of the pyramids, witness the 
embalming of their kings, the splendor of the courts of 
the Ptolemies ; or suppose he pass through Rome in 
her Augustan age, notice the splendor of its architect¬ 
ure, the races, the gladiatorial combats, the triumphal 
processions; or suppose him a traveller in Europe at 
the present time, he will notice its governments, its 
agriculture, its fleets and armies, arsenals, manufacto¬ 
ries—eveiything man has made, it wdll still be the phys¬ 
ical element 1 e will see. 

A painter, worthy the name of artist, when painting 
the human features, will use the same materials and be 
guided hy the same rules as to the mechanical part of 
his w’ork as any ordinary painter painting a sign or any 
object in a landscape; but with prcportion, outlines, 
coloring, shading, the artist will combine fupressmv. He 
will minor, as near as may be, the soul and mind within. 

Just so with the different manifestations of the phys¬ 
ical element. The most enlightened government on 
earth and the noblest cathedral have equally with the 
wdgwuim and the tradition of the savage, the physical 
element as the fundamental part in their construction, 
but with the government and the cathedral there is an 
important ninnHlumj added. 

We will now^ consider the nature and functions of the 
moral element. By the moral element we do not mean 


10 


morality, indeed it may be the very opposite of what is 
understood by that term, but we mean that principle 
called conscience within all mankind, heathen as well as 
Christian, and we unite with this whatever it may be 
that gives direction to this principle, in oth:r words, 
educates it. This may be a belief in Brahma or Buddha, 
in one or all of the gods of the Pantheon, or in the 
unknown God Avhom St. Paul declared to the Athen¬ 
ians, or it may be that which is the greatest anomaly— 
the belief of the atheist, who is not only without God 
in the world, but without even the hope of the heathen. 
It may consist of the self-indulgence of the Epicureans, 
or the self-denial of the Stoics ; the licentiousness whicdi 
made part of heathen worship, or the pmity or tlu5 
vestal virgins ; the faint glimmerings of immortality 
contained in heathen philosophy, or a belief in annihi¬ 
lation ; in short, every influence that may be brought to 
bear upon conscience as influencing action. 

It will readily be seen how the moral element infln- 
ences the physical element. Take one of the more 
important influences—for instance, a belief in the im¬ 
mortality of the soul. How it ennobles evt rything. If 
there be a principle within us that never dies, then ( f 
course this life is but a preparation, and the nature of 
that preparation is determined by the nature of that 
future life, that immortality. Does that future consist 
of sensual pleasures? then will the like pleasures be 
the great aim in this life. Is it an immortality of purity 
and worship? then will the body be brought into sub¬ 
jection and made meet for the indwelling of the immor¬ 
tal spirit, and that wordiip which is to continue vill be 
begun on earth. Whatever direction the moral element 
may take, will give character to the act included in the 
physical element. 

We will now consider the effect the moral element has 
on the mental. By this we mean that according to the 



11 


nalure of one’s belief, will they build a pantheon or a 
cathedral, paint a Venus or a Madonna, represent in 
sculpture a Jupiter or the Son of God manifest in the 
flesh; they will write a treatise on Budilha or the Prophet, 
on Judaism or Christianity, on Romanism or Protes¬ 
tantism. 

Haviuji; considered the nature and functions of the 
difterent elements separately, each as distinctly as pos¬ 
sible frojn the others, we will now^ treat them in a more 
general way and with reference to the two great princi¬ 
ples which include all minor influences that every wdiere 
and in all ages of the world have been brought to bear 
u])on mankind and upon government—heathenism and 
Christianity. 

The Mosaic law bears the same relation to govern¬ 
ment in general that Judaism bore to the Gentile world. 
Th<‘ middle wall of partition needed to be broken down, 
and this wns done as effectually by the sacrifice of Christ 
as regards civil government, as to the Church of Christ 
w hich ever thereafter was to include Gentile as such as 
veil as J' w. Whatever was of universal application in 
tl'e law of IVfoses being included in the law of Christ, 
we have as before mentioned, the two general princi¬ 
ples nnderlying and including all influences that can be 
brought to bear upon government—heathenism and 
Christianity. 

As the most perfect representation of the principle, 
we will consider civilization and government where it 
attained its highest perfection under heathen influence, 
in ancient Greece and Rome. 

As some of the ancient philosophers declared it to be 
impossible for the human mind unaided to discover the 
nature of the soul after death, to understand the nature 
and attributes of an overruling power, of the relation 
man sustained to that pov-er, so w'as it impossible for 


12 


them to carry civilization and government farther than 
did the Greeks and Komans. 

With all their love of philosoph}^, the more elevated 

/ ideas they had of man’s iiatuie as shown by their deify¬ 
ing of the noblest attributes of miud, the dim per¬ 

ception they seem to have had of the eternity of the 
soul, of future rewards and punishments, there was no 
one to speak with that authority necessary to command 
the respect of all. Though one law-giver did not al¬ 
ways op])()se aiiutinu’, he emh'avoied to attain tluj saine 
end by different measures. '^Flius, tJiough some whose 
laws on the whole exerted a beneficial influence, strove 
to adopt measures that would render them permanent, 
they were unable to do so, the influence of tin ir laws 
passing away in a great measure with their lives. Be¬ 
sides, there being no religious belief held in common, 
that is among different nations and successive times, 
there was nothing that spoke to them with authoriiy, 
and thus serve as a rallying point around which ihe 
promoters of civilization might cluster their piinciples, 
and thus, by their united effort, enable them to carry 
out in government that principle which is its life, that of 
progress. 

As a natural result of all this, we find a lack of liar- 
mony in the development of the elements of man’s na¬ 
ture. We see the extremes of popular ignorance and a 
nobility of literature and philosophy, of master and 
slave, of the grossest sensuality and a subtile refine¬ 
ment. 

Heathenism carried humanity itp to a certain point, 
but it could go no further. The high degree of civiliza¬ 
tion attained by the Greeks and Ronmns is so often al- 
lucled to, that it may seem to say that even 

there, there was a lack of the mental element, but there 
was, and that in a most important point, its existence 
among the people. 



In order that knowledge exercise its highest good, it 
must be diffused among the people, and the knowledge 
of tJta! is an ttrt they never lost. In what way may their 
lack of knowledge be seen ? In all countries where 
there are extremes in the social and political status of 
the people, as noble and serf, master and slave, labor 
is performed by the many for the benefit of the few—the 
privileged class. 

In all ages, knowledge has been considered power, 
consequently it has been kept on the side of those in au¬ 
thority, not merely for their personal gratification, but 
that authority might continue. 

Now any original idea, any invention, any advance of 
the principles in science and art, is just as much the re¬ 
sult of labor as if performed b}^ the hand. When by 
accident a slave or a serf or any individual of an infe- 
lior class, performs such labor ; it is not the author, the 
inventor, and the class to wliii h he belongs that reaps 
the benefit of his work, but it is the ruling class. 

Suppose the invention to be some theory of govern¬ 
ment, or any thing which if generally known, would be 
considered to have a tendency to weaken the authority 
of the powers that be, the inventor pays the penalty 
with his life. If the invention consist of any thing usu¬ 
ally included under that term, or if it be some impor¬ 
tant principle in science or the arts, the inventor is al¬ 
lowed, perhaps employed, to make use of it or to apply 
it, as the case may be, for the benefit of the privileged 
class but it is not allowed to be generally known, so that 
if the authorities are too lazy to acquire the knowledge 
for themselves, when the inventor dies, his knowledge 
dies with him. 

It is to this principle—the separating of labor from the 
reward of labor—more than to the destruction of books, 
that we are indebtod for what are called the lost arts. 
No one supposes that the art of embalming was gener- 


14 


ally kDOwn at the time it was practised, or that it was 
used on any but royalty, or, at least, the nobility. The 
same principle will hold true in every instance where the 
sk 11 of the ancients rivalled that of the present. Un¬ 
fortunately, the practice of the principle did not die with 
that of which it caused the death. The present manu- 
fac ure of the Gobelin Tapestry in Paris, furnishes an 
exact parallel. 

Much has been said as to the comparative merit of 
he:, then and Christian art, but the subject is by no means 
exhausted. Many take the ground that Christianity is 
restraining in its influence upon art. But what is art? 
There are two things art is not. It consists neither in 
skill of execution nor in richness of material ; were it 
merelv mechanical skill, a coin with the ten command¬ 
ments engraved upon it, or a finely constructed engine, 
would be examples of perfect art; were it richness of 
material, then would an imperial crown be a crown of 
art. 

Art is the expression of an idea, consequently what¬ 
ever enlarges and ennobles idea, enlarges and ennobh s 
art. Now as to the comparative merit of heathen and 
Christian art, there is one aspect in which the subject 
may be viewed, which presents it with mathematical 
certainty, in that a whole is greater than a part. 

Take the most exalted idea of heathen art, all will ad¬ 
mit that their knowledge of the attributes of the deity, 
the nature of man and the relation he sustains to his 
Creator—if indeed he be not self-existent—the immor¬ 
tality of the soul, consequently every thing connected 
with a future life was circumscribed, it had a limit, it 
could be defined. There was a point beyond which 
their imagination could not reach. But where is the 
limit to Christian idea. To whatever the heathen pos¬ 
sessed that was true and inspiring in art, Christianity 



adds all that elevates the Christian religion above that 
of all the gods of the Pantheon. When the idea and 
the execution of it harmonizes, we have the perfection 
of art. That which Schh gel says of pot try, is equally 
true of art in general. “ The proper busint ss of poetry 
is to represent only the eternal; that which is at all 
places, and in all times, significant and beautiful.” 

Having considered the nature of the influences of 
heathenism upon the elements of government and upon 
society as seen in the most advanced heathen civiliza¬ 
tion, w e wdll now notice the effect of Christianity upon 
government. 

The idea seems too generally to prevail that the w orth 
of Christianity is to be judged b} different rules from 
that of other religions, but it is not so. Christianity 
has not changed human nature, but it has revealed that 
nature to us. Just in proportion that any system of re¬ 
ligion, whether it be heathen or Christian, is in conformi¬ 
ty or adapted to man’s nature, just in that proportion 
will be the degree of influence which it will exert, and 
it is only when the founder of any system of religion 
comprehends the whole of man’s nature, that he can 
devise a system of laws the obedience of which will en¬ 
sure the fullest and most complete development of that 
nature. In short, the Creator of man, and He only, 
can be the author of a system unfolding the nature of 
that existence and prescribing laws by which it may be 
governed; Mid just in proportion that the adaptation of 
the one to the other is seen, will the Author of the one 
and the Creator of the other be recognized. 

Why is it that the civilization of ancient Greece and 
Borne began to wane when it had reached a point far 
below' that attained by modern Christian nations ? Does 
the law of progress which seems stamped upon every 
thing w'ith which man has to do include Christianity, or 
does Christianity originate the law of progress, or is 


Christianity an exception to what seems to be a general 
tendency ? 

What are the distinguishing features of Christianity 
as afftcting government? If the Godhead be supreme> 
then must His authority be supreme also. If He be the 
Father of all, the co-relative to this is the brotherhood 
of man. If the highest wisdom of man has declared it 
imp(!ss b’e for him to save himself, has this Supreme 
God, before unknown, provided a way of salvation, and 
are all included in that plan? Were the longings of the 
ancient poets and philosophers for immortality a mere 
cdjimera, or is there in reality a principle of divinity 
within us? Is there an ennobling of man’s whole na¬ 
ture, or is his measure determined? What is the stand¬ 
ard set for his attainment ? Is it a noble physical de¬ 
velopment, such as we may suppose the Roman guards 
to have possessed? Is it a morality either Stoic or Ep¬ 
icurean ; or is it a mental development uniting all the at¬ 
tainments of heathen intelligence ? 

Far from all this, the length and breadth, the height 
and depth of all human philosophy had confessed hself 
unable to determine it It is that which seems so sini- 
ple but at the same time is so sublime in its comprehen¬ 
sion. “ Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father 
who is in Heaven is perfect.” And what is meant by 
this? Does it mean that man can attain to the purity, 
the justice of that Being who speaks of himself as a 
righteous God? Does it mean that man should consid¬ 
er it possible, by his utmost exertions, to attain to the 
wisdom of the Infinite? Far from it. It means that he 
should so comply with the laws which his Creator has 
given for the regulation of his whole being, that body, 
soul, and mind, each proportionably developed, the 
whole should form an harmonious unity complete in 
quality though still far below its Maker in degree. 




17 


Surely, with such a perfection, the most earnest aspira¬ 
tions of the human mind and soul can well be content. 

The influence of Christianity upon govern meet was 
felt but little for the first few centuries, owing to the 
convei ts being mostly among the subjects of law, instead 
of the makers of it; though many in authority could 
not but acknowledge' the beneficial effc ct it had on those 
who professed the faith, in that it made them more obe¬ 
dient to the civil law whenever it did not come in con¬ 
flict with their worship of the one God. 

As time passed and Christianity numbered among its 
converts kings and emperors, instead of its having the 
effect which the peaceful but at the same time, powerful 
influence of its nature indicated it should have, it was 
too generally use(' by the designing and powerful among 
its believers as a cloak for carrying out their ambitious 
purposes by shielding themselves behind the authority 
which they appropriated from Christianity. All experi¬ 
ence shows til at where a general knowledge of the pre¬ 
cepts and promises of the Gospel are wanting, there will 
not be wanting those who will pervert these and make 
use of the awful sanctions accompanying them to en¬ 
force their authority. 

The principle to which we have before alluded, of 
confining knowledge for the benefit of the privileged 
classes practised by heathen Greece and Kome, was 
continued under Christianity—though the command to 
teach the Gospel to all nations was not neglected, the 
people ghnerally were not allowed the direct knowledge 
of that Gospel. 

If ever apparei't opposites furnished a parallel, it is 
heathen and papal Rome. Not only do they resemble 
each other in their intense administrative or executive 
energy, but also in their use, or abuse, of the mental 
element. Both have given to the world much that is 
noble in literature and art, and both exhibit as an essen- 


18 


tial element of their system, the ignorance and conse¬ 
quent degraflation of the lower classes. 

Having considered the tendency of any system of re¬ 
ligion, whether heathen nr a pi rversion of tho Christian, 
that does not include the brotherhood of all, to keep a 
portion in ignorance, in other words, to prevent a gen¬ 
eral diffusion of the mental element; we vill now con¬ 
sider the effect of true Christianity, by vhich we mean 
simply Christianity not partially but fully developed. 

The Heformers, by giving the Bible to the people, en¬ 
abled them to apply its promises and teachings foi them¬ 
selves instead of their being administered to them by 
others. The knowledge which had been confined to a 
few now became general, and as matter when expanded 
produces a greater effect than when confined, so knowl¬ 
edge as it burst from the bonds in which it had been 
held, expanded with such force that thrones and empires, 
civilization and government, but more than all, or rather 
including all, mind itself was freed from its long impris¬ 
onment. 

What was the knowledge that effected this result ? Is 
there one Mediator between God and man, or is the Me¬ 
diatorial work shared by lesse^r intelligences? Is death 
the end of preparation for eternity, or is there a place* 
and time where preparation can be continued and per¬ 
fected? Is God the judge of all and does he reserve the 
judgment of all to the great day as his peculiar preroga¬ 
tive, or has He delegated part of that authority to oth¬ 
ers? Is salvation the free gift of God, or may it be 
purchased with money ? Does God intend that all, or 
only a portion of his created beings should have the 
knowledge of His revealed will. If God is our Father, 
then does He look with peculiar favor on a portion of 
His children, or are all equal in His sight? 

It will readily be seen how the knowledge of these in¬ 
fluenced their daily life. If indulgences could not ab- 



19 


solve from sin, then a purer life Avas needed. If the Son 
of God is tlie only mediator, then faith in the merits of 
His atonement, and the consequent necessity of a com¬ 
pliance Avith His commands in order to receiA^e the ben¬ 
efits of that atonement. If there be no purgatory, then 
is it necessary so to live here as believing there avuII be 
no chance for preparation Lereafter. If salvation is for 
all, then all have a right to a personal knoAvledge of the 
means of salvation. It Avas not merely A\diether they 
belicA^ed so and so, but Avhether they did so and so, and 
it will be found of universal application that those na¬ 
tions in Avhich the belief of the practical part of Chris¬ 
tianity is tlie strongest, haA^e made the greatest advance 
in that Avhich is known as progress. 

Does it tin n follow that a belief in Avhatmay be called 
the theory of Christianity, is of no importance? By no 
means. The effect of an extrom :: perversion of the doc¬ 
trines of Christianity is seen in Mahomedanism, and 
sooner or later an}" lesser degree of error in doctrine 
will surely be followed by ei ror in practise. 

That word Avhich best expresses, not only the mode of 
government l)ut the diiection of thought before the Re¬ 
formation, is conrcnfr.tfion, and that Avord which best ex¬ 
presses the same after the Reformation, is d ffuaioii. The 
light of knowledge which may be said to include all, 
like the light of the sun, Avhen concentrated Avill con¬ 
sume that which it would enlighten if diffused. 

Another important difference more particularly con¬ 
nected with governmont and for Avhich the diffusion of 
knoAvledge prepared the way, is this, that before the Re¬ 
formation the influence of goA^erninent upon the individ¬ 
ual was directly from without. By the Avord govern¬ 
ment Ave include all influences that Avere brought to bear 
upon individuals separately or collectively, as prevent¬ 
ing or compelling action. 

After the Reformation, government proceeded more 


20 


from within. The moral and the mental elements of 
m in’s nature bcM’ng developed he found he had a higher 
law of action within him, a more noble restaining influ¬ 
ence—in other words, self-government, than any exter¬ 
nal influi'nce—in other words, force, that could be 
brought to bear upon his physical element. This is in¬ 
deed the key to the whole of the influe nce upon indi- 
Auduals and upon gove rnment by an unfettered Christi¬ 
anity. 

It is this individual self-command which includes so 
much, not only the control of those passions and ener¬ 
gies whic'i may be in excess, but also the calling up of 
those forces of soul and mind as well as of body which 
may be latemt; it is all this which consti utes that moral 
force, m iking a lever of which Archimedes never 
dreamed and which fs moving the world—not downwards 
by crushing and grinding as do t} rants and armies, but 
moving it onwards and upwards. 

Before and after the Christian era, it was principally 
through the physical element that government influenced 
the individual; force was met hy force, the stronger sub¬ 
dued the weaker and when the weaker became the 
stronger, the tables were turned. After the Beforma- 
tion, the moral and the mental elements were developed, 
not that there w^as a decrease of the physical element 
but it was ennobled and made more fitting to be tiie 
medium through which the moral and the mental ele¬ 
ments should find expression. 

Combine and concerit.iate all of the physical element 
in the different civilizations that have existed—the As¬ 
syrian, the Persian, the Egyptian, the Grecian, the Ro¬ 
man—and you will then fall short as to the comparative 
value of the physical element presented by modern 
Christian nations. 

We do not mean simply the number, variety, and 
splendor of public buildings, the immense navies belong- 



21 


ing to difterent nations, steamships crossing oceans, and 
railroads crossing continents, telegraphs encircling the 
world with instantaneous thought, roads over mountains 
and tbrougb them, it is not this and much of which this 
is only a beginning ; but we mean tbe comforts possess¬ 
ed by the poor, the more general diffusion of wealth, 
hospitals for the relief of srfterirg of every form, the 
greater regard paid to tbe life and rights of the lower 
classes, the elevation of labor, tbe general use of labor- 
saving machines thus giving the laborer time for self¬ 
culture, tbe more merciful treatment of prisoners of war, 
the law of nations, the acknowledged rigid of tbe weak¬ 
est nation to existence equally with the strongest; it is 
this wbich we mean and much of which this is only a be¬ 
ginning. 

No matter how slightly two lines converge, they must 
meet somewhere. AVe have seen that in infancy, wheth¬ 
er of tbe individual or of the nation, there is the great¬ 
est difference in the degree of development of the ele¬ 
ments of our nature and of government; as we progress 
towards a full, perfect, and complete manhood the differ¬ 
ence lessens till a balance is reached—and what is that 
balance ? It is Liberty, and this is the point towards 
w hich all history tends. 

'! hfi proi/retix the elements of our nutnre towards n halanre 
is fh^ epitome of all history, and LIBERTY IS THE EXERCISE OF 
THAT BALANCE. 

The question may be asked, if liberty is the result of 
the harniouius development of the elements of our na¬ 
ture, and of government, why, when modern govern¬ 
ments show such a degree of progress towards that bal¬ 
ance, iher- is not more of national liberty ? We answer 
by asking, why, among Christian nations, there is not 
more of Christianity. 

The highest attainments of a nation can never be 
considered the standard to which the majority of that 


22 


nation have attained Though Italy seems to be the 
home of the arts, no one for a moment considers the ma¬ 
jority of Italians, artists; though science flourishes in 
France, no one considers the majority of the people its 
votaries ; because England has produced a Newton and 
a Shakspeare, no one thinks of all Englislmien either as 
philosophers or poets. 

When the elements of our nature had progressed 
towards a balance for hundreds and thousands of years, 
each having at times its triumphs and obscurities, all 
being strengthened and ennobled by the discipline they 
had undergone till it seemed as if each separately 
had attained the utm ;st degree of development short of 
a balance of the whole; at what point in history is it 
that we find that balance reached ? 

Just as long as government recognizes a difference in 
the birthright of any of its citizens, no matter how 
slight that difference may be, just so long will full, per¬ 
fect and complete liberty be impossible. When the 
equality of all as to the right of possession of life, lib¬ 
erty and the pursuit of happiness, was declared, then 
was the necessity of a balance of the elements of gov¬ 
ernment first endorsed by a nation. 

The sun will sooner again stand still upon Gibeon, 
and the moon in the valley of Ai^alon, than this 
principle, once declared, will ever be lost. God 
some times, tor some wise purpose, suspends the opera¬ 
tion of those laws by which He controls matter, but 
moral laws never. Heaven and earth may pass aAvay, 
but one jot, or one tittle of the law shall not fail. 

One after another of the nations of the world, having 
first made the necessary degree of progress, will join in 
striking the balance. The nature of the progress being 
complete, all will unite in developing it, till, though the 
Infinite may never be reached, it w'ould s^'em as if there 
were no bounds to the finite. 



2:i 

Having reached the attainment of that principle— 
Liberty —towards which all history tends, and the gene¬ 
ral adoption of which will include all thei e may be of 
history in the future, we will now take a survey and no¬ 
tice a few of the more important inferences which may 
be deduced from the principles we have considered. 

Of the fiist importance and the foundation of all pro¬ 
gress both in the individual and in government is this, 
that as the individual cannot climb without having some 
point in view above the level of his bodily stature, and 
further, that he must take all the portions of his body, 
not leaving behind either his hands, his feet, or his head 
but must carry all; so if we would have progress of our 
individual nature and of government, we must reach at 
some standard higher than the level of our human na¬ 
ture, and which wdll demand the exercise of all our fac¬ 
ulties ; not simply of the mind with its perceptions, its 
ima;^iuings, its reasonings; the soul with its reverence 
or i’^s superstitions ; or the body with the full energy of 
its [)assions and desires ; but our wdiole being, body, soul 
and mind, each so acting that tliey mutually help one 
another. 

It is because all heathen religions are on a level with 
onr nature, that they have been found unable to carry 
our nature beyond that level. 

It is Christianity alone, true and unfettered, which 
furnishes a standard far above our nature, and the at¬ 
tainment of which demands the exercise of all the ener¬ 
gies of our whole being, making the fhll and complete 
developement of all necessary. It is this which con¬ 
stitutes re 1 progress, and which progress will continue 
’till the stmufnrfl shall be reached. 

Another inference is, that according to the nature, at¬ 
tributes, 07- whatever you choose to call it, of the being, 
superior intelligence, any idea represented by an idol, a 
god, whether it be “Jehovah, Jove, or Lord”—whatever 


24 


it may be, will give character to the physical and the 
mental elements in mankind and in government. In 
other words, that government is belief in action. To be 
in the strict sense of the word an atheist, that is, without 
any religious belief, is utterly impossible. 

Another inference is, that wherever there seems to be 
a predominance of any one of the elements, it is not so 
much from an excess of that element as from a lack of 
the others. 

Another and an exceedingly practical inference is, that 
wherever there seems to be a predominance of the moral 
element, no matter in what age of the world or what form 
it may take, whether it be Lea then mythology, Mahom- 
medanism, Homanism, Mormonism, Spiritualism—no 
matter wLat it may be, that is active in its operatienis 
and which makes every thing bend to the furtherance of 
the system ; it will be found upon a close analysis, with¬ 
out one single exception, that it is not simplv for the in¬ 
crease of the moral element, but for the carrying out of 
measures included in the physical element. 

Another important inference and w hich, if more gener¬ 
ally recognized, would prevent confusion, is that legisla¬ 
tion is but a small part of government, and that other 
influences aSfect government more than legisation. 

Another inference is, that no matter how specious the 
garb may be, any measure that has a tendency to 
strengthen the.physical element without at the same time 
purifying and ennobling the moral and the mental ele¬ 
ments, is inimical to liberty ; and on the other hand, an}- 
influence that has a tendency to enervate the physical 
element cannot be ennobling to the moral and the mental 
elements. 

The last important inference we wdll notice and which 
may be said to include all the others, is this, a good de¬ 
gree of progress towards a balance in the development 
of the elements of government, is absolutely necessary 



before liberty can become national. In other words, 
it is utterly impossible to jnrnp from a government where 
the physical element strongly predominates, as in an¬ 
archy or a de^^potism, to a government where all the 
elements'are developed, that is—to Liberty. 


PART SECOND. 


PEDEBATION. 

Among the most important principles consequent up¬ 
on the exercise of a balance of the elements of govern¬ 
ment, are Federation, Free Soil, and Kepresentation ac¬ 
cording to the Population. 

It has been said that thus far federacies have proved 
failures, and, as proof of the truth of the assertion, refer¬ 
ence has been made to the Amphyctionic Council, the 
Achaean League, the United Provinces of Holland, in 
Mexico, and Central America. 

When, or under what circumstances, have federacies 
flourished ? 

When there has existed some cause \^hich produced 
unity of action, whether that cause consisted of danger 
from without, or from a desire of mutual advancement. 
The motive power which produced this unity of action, 
was the equality of the different States simply as mem¬ 
bers of the confederacy without the slightest regard to 
the rank which they might hold individually in jes})ect 
to wealth and poj)illation. 

Now no conclusion can be mOie certain than that 
whatever of leg slation, or anything else, lias a tendency 




27 


to continue that equality, will continue the confederacy. 
Perhaps no stronger instance can be given of the carry¬ 
ing out of this vital principle independent of any extra¬ 
neous force, than is afforded by the United States. The 
Federal Constitution makes every State in the Union, 
though its population and wealth be computed by thous¬ 
ands, equal with those States in which the populaiion 
and wealth are numbered by millions. Whatever may 
be termed the National interests of the of a State, 

are provided for by the representatives of the pf opU of 
that State in the National Legislature, but the interests 
and rights of a State must be provided for by the repre¬ 
sentatives of that Stott, as, aue ^. f the Union, as a member 
in the Federal Senate, which body is 
the representative of the States and not the representa¬ 
tive of the iudtvUuals composing those States. 

The importance of preserving this distinction cannot 
be overestimated. The subject which is sometimes agi¬ 
tated, (f the people voting for the Senators of the Na¬ 
tion instead of their being chosen by the State Legisla¬ 
tures, strikes at the very root of this distinction. True, 
all the States, the smallest as well as the largest, would 
at first vote for an equal number ot Senators; but tho 
principle, the majority rules, is so incorporated into the 
working of the Constitution tliat the right of the larger 
States to a number of Senators proportionate to their 
wealth and population would certainly follow. It would 
be merely a question of time. 

This principle, the right of the States of a Confederacy 
to an equal representation in the Federal Senate, that is, 
to a perfect equality as members of the Union, if it be 
not the corner stone, it is the key stone of a Confederacy. 

ITIEE SOIL. 

This [>ortion of our subject includes a statement of the 


28 


successive modes of tenure from the time the soil is 
“ Nature’s own domain,” but more particularly when it 
is claimed by a few proprietors, to the time when “ every 
man sits under his own vine and fig tree,” with the in¬ 
fluence of each upon government. 

EEPEESENTATION ACCOEDING TO THE POPU¬ 
LATION. 

I liavenow reached that subject which is not only the 
last in the order I have chosen, but it is fitting it should 
be the conclusion, in that it can be exercised only when 
the principles previously discussed have been attained, 
and also because it includes them all. Itisthe principle 
in which they all culminate; indeed, true representation 
is not so much a principle in government as that for 
which government itself is instituted. 

All representation may be included under two general 
heads—the right of the individual to represent, and the 
right of the individual to be represented. 

IJunder the first head—the right of the individual to 
represent—may be included all those forms of represen¬ 
tation, the exercise of which is usually prefaced or ac¬ 
companied by the declaration of “ by Divine right,” from 
the merely physical superiority—the might making right 
—of the savage, to the “ Dei Gratia” of “ His’' or “ Her 
Most Christian Majesty.” 

The other head—the right of the individual to be rep¬ 
resented—places the divine right at the other end of the 
balance, that of the people to choose who shall represent 
them. 

As all the shades of representation included under the 
first head are mere successive steps in the progress 
towards a true, individual representation, we will mosth' 
confine our remarks to that form of representation which 
IS generally styled, represenfavion ar.rording to the population. 



29 


What is the basis of representation accoiclirg to the 
population ? Ask an individual and in nint ty-nine cases 
out of a hundred the answer will be, one to so many 
thousand inhabitants.” This it rill le seen has refer¬ 
ence mere ly to members without any regard to the status 
of the individual. 

No matter what the form of government may be, it is 
impossil le for aT to take a direct part either in making 
the laws or executing tlj( in for the. simple reason, if there 
were no other, that in that case there would be none to 
govern ; but aside from this tluTe must be producers 
and whenever a less number than a reasonable propor¬ 
tion cease to be producers, no matter what the cause 
may be, that country suffers. 

In order that the representation be faithful, is it suf- 
ficit nt that it be direc*^, that is, that the person repre¬ 
sented chooses for himself uho shall represent him. 

Legislation wi 1 always be shaped by whatever inter¬ 
est is represented, whether it be recognized as a basis 
or not. Among savages, anything worthy the name of 
legislation is absolutely w^anting; there is no law but 
brute force and those individuals who possess this in the 
greatest degree are the most faithful representatives of 
their race. When physical power is concentrated, which 
we call despotism, the despot acts in the place of, if not 
for, those beneath him ; in that case, the will of the 
tyrant whether for good or for evil is the only interest 
represented, and whatever there may be of legislation, 
he is both legislator and executive. When we come to 
what is called a limited monarchy, the prerogatives of 
the monarch as legislator are modified or shared with 
either an aristocracy or alone, or an aristoci^acy com¬ 
bined with legislators chosen either more or less directly 
by the people. 

Although there seems to be a great difference in the 


30 


carrying out of these several forms of government, they 
will be seen to all agree, ^^ith the exception of the small, 
additional element in a constitutional monarchy, in a 
recognition of the one man power as a basis of govern¬ 
ment, modified it may be, or diluted. It recognizes au¬ 
thority as existing in those alone whose social st tus is 
above the people ; it does not make the people the source 
of power, so that whether the legislation be favorable or 
not to their interests, it is both conceived and executed 
without their co operation. 

Let us see how it is wdien the people choose directly 
their representatives. Does it then follow that legisla¬ 
tion is necessarily favorable to their interests. How is 
it with the S. A. republics ? How is it with France ? 
did the votes ot her people in her last revolution make 
her a republic? How is it with England ? Looking at 
her from one side, her people are directly represented, 
by the eklest son ; looking at her from the other side, 
her people are indirectly represent'd, for, excepting the 
eldest son, all are excluded. But what is the result. 
Excepting the U. S., there is no country on earth where 
legislation results so much for the good of the people 
In France, in 1848, the people voted directly, but did 
that give them a republic, a government not only/br the 
people, but f>y the people? How is it with the U. S.? 
Before the rebellion, the people of the south voted di¬ 
rectly, they had the same Constitution, the same Feder¬ 
al laws that those of the north had, but w’ere their inter¬ 
ests represented ? were the interests of the slave holder 
even represented ? No, but there is one thing that was 
represented, and that, not in a three-fifths ratio but to 
the fullest extent, and that was—slavery. 

Having seen in other countries instances w here indi¬ 
rect representation does represent the interests of the 
people, and from the U. S., as w'ell as other countries in- 



31 


stances where direct representation fails to attain that 
end, what are we to conclude. 

It is this, and we can scarcely realize its importance. 
The principle which is not merely the corner-stone, but 
the foundation, the basis of a true, faithful, representa¬ 
tion—Equality between the people and the representa¬ 
tive. This must be the basis in all self-governments 
however various may be the ways by which this equality 
is expressed. 

Let the sides of the equation be what they may, they 
must balance. If the representative is mentally and 
not morally, but socially nhove the represented, there is 
tyranny. If the representative is mentally and morally 
below the represented, there is anarchy ; there can be no 
alternative. 

Where physical power is the basis of whatever exists 
as government, then is the chief of his tribe, the most 
perfect representative on Eaith, that is, the elements of 
A'.S' chai acter and those of the indivuhi<ih of his tribe are 
more nearly balanced, the difference being merely that 
of degree, not of quality. So in the case of all socie¬ 
ties where physical power is the prominent element in 
their organization. 

But physical power alone being the lowest element in 
human existence, equality here is simply saying that all 
are low, there is no real superiority, no element that is 
elevating, progressive. We need not say that this is uot 
the equality we want. 

But further, when manufacturers of iron, chambers of 
commerce, rail-road committees, in short, producers of 
any kind, unite in sending men of like views with them¬ 
selves to a convention organized for the purpose of ad¬ 
vancing their interests either by promoting greater per¬ 
fection, or for their pecuniary advantage ; or when they 
unite in petitioning either the National or local legisla¬ 
tures to pass laws which they consider to be for their 


interests, those whom they send to represent those inter¬ 
ests, we say are tin ir represc'utatives. Here is equality, 
but is that the equality whieh is needed? 

A truly representative man is never a man of one idea, 
consequently a national rej^resentative can never repre¬ 
sent one single interest. 

AVhat then should be the nature of this (quality, and 
by what measures is it to he attained? 

There is peiha[)S no word to which greater differences 
of meaning have been applied than to equahty as ap¬ 
plied to citizens of a State. There aie t^vo extre mes 
which include many minor diff(renc('s. One is, that of a 
social as well as political ecpiality, bringing all indeed to 
a level, but that the level of the lowi st, instead of raising 
the lowest, as much as po:'sible, to the hn^el of the high¬ 
est. Such wou’d make Nature’s true nobility, the int< 1- 
ligent and virtuous, companions and associates of the 
ignorant and vicious. Instances of this are seen in 
mobs and all like movements which pretend to aim at 
equality, but, in reality, they are merely leveling. An 
extreme of an attempt at this is setn in the French Rev¬ 
olution. 

The other extreme would have all share political equal¬ 
ity, but w’ould not only retain, but would rather increase 
the social position of the more elevated class, but all ex¬ 
perience show’s that this cannot be done without infring¬ 
ing on the social status of the inferior, and not only so, 
but where the restraints are sufficient to prevent the ele¬ 
vation of the social condition of the inferior, political 
equality will not long remain. 

This brings us to a third and an entirely different view 
of equality, which recognizes not only a political but 
such a social equality as depends, not on wealth or con¬ 
nexion but on individual w’ortli; recognizing the fact 
that there are w orthy poor who are as intelligent and re¬ 
fined as those that wealth can afford. Not such a social 


equality as would brin^ the ignorant and vulgar while 
such on a level wUh the educated, but such as would 
give them the means and encouragement to raise them¬ 
selves from that d* gradation and their success in turn 
encourage others. That is tise great hope of self-gov¬ 
ernment, that the lovvest may be able to elevate them¬ 
selves. It will not do to be conservative here and thus 
tr(‘at the social condition of an individual as caste from 
which it is impossible either to liseor fall, neither will it 
do to be radical and thus acknowledge no social differ¬ 
ences. 

There never was a time in the history of the world, 
when there was more nearly an equality between leaders 
and people than during the American Kevolution. The 
pledge of the Eevolutionary Fathers to each other of 
their lives —was not confined to them alone ; they not 
only supported each other, but they were supported by 
the people, and that was the secret of their success. 

Though revolutions bring out the energies ot great 
minds which might otherwise be latent, they do not pre¬ 
pare the people. They must be prepared before hand; 
if there is any harvest of good to be reaped, the people 
must be prepared to gather it in. 

The French Eevolution, instead of proving the over¬ 
throw of monarchial principles and the establishment of 
a government based upon equal rights, proved that the 
watch-word Liberty, Equality and Reason,” was to 
the French people an unknowm god whom they ignorant¬ 
ly worshiped. 

The overthrow^ of one dynasty only prepared the way 
for the elevation of an usurper. The first Napoleon, 
whatever else he may have been, w^as not a representa¬ 
tive man, consequently could not be the executive in the 
formation of a representative government, a vital element 
in a republic. 

La Favette, whose sympathies for a feeblenation strug- 


:]4 

gling to be free, were b isect on tlie belief that they were 
prep ired for self government, would gladly have bee n an 
instrument in secnr'ng the sanu^ blessings to hisc untry- 
men, but they received him not. Thus it has ever been 
in all stages of the world and always will be, until gov¬ 
ernment based upon ecjual rights shad be established 
over all. 

Successively representative men have aiisen, who, 
though their views were peihapsnotas eula)g{ cl as those 
of representative ri.en at the present time, were suffi- 
cienth advanced to prevent co-operation. They were 
fit to lead, but the people were not pre|) red to appre- 
c ate them, and consequently would not follow. Web¬ 
ster, in his Hulseman letter, intimates that he thought 
some'hiiig was wanting to Hungary of more importance 
than the m iteriel of war and numerical strength. 

No ind vidua! is either puiely physical, m* ntal, or 
moral, bat his iiidivi luality depends upon the proportion 
in which tliese elements are combine 1. Just so in govern¬ 
ment. Now th point that most concerns us is this, that 
just in the proporthm that each or any of these elements 
exist in a people, just in that proportion wi 1 they I e 
found in the legislative halls of that nation. 

As every person makes his own individualily the me¬ 
dium through which lie observes the world around him, 
no matter how limited or extended that m‘:»y be, he Mill 
assimilate with whatever corresponds with the element 
that predominates in his character. If the physical 
element prevails and his nature be yielding, he will sub¬ 
mit to tyranny ; but if he I rooks control, he will himself 
act the tyrant, and just so with the other elements. If 
combined with will and energy, they will command others; 
wh re will and energy are wanting, they will submit to a 
like influence in others. 

Now in government, not only is it true that like peo¬ 
ple will produce like representatives, that is. an intelli- 


gent people will choose an intelligent representative ; a 
Chrisli:in peop’e, a Christian representative; while the 
champions of the ring and their like, will choose a like 
representative ; not only is this true, but it is also true 
that whether or not the people have a vedeejn choosing 
their representatives, the predominating element in the 
people will still eontro! legislation, because that element 
will, in reality, be a basis of legislation, and whatever 
class of men or of principles a'>"siinil de with that element 
those men and those princi[»les wi'l control legislathm. 

Now when mind, soul and the f>hysical poAvers exist in 
their due propoj tion and have all been developed and 
educated, each with reg ird to the interests of the others, 
Ave say that individual is well balanced, that he is a rep¬ 
resentative man, a type of true. Godlike manhood, and 
until a majority of the individuals composing a nation 
have attained this balance of the elements of their nature, 
no matter how many Washingtons they may have, how 
near like Moses their leaders may be, it is impossible for 
that nation to become independent, self governing. 

Not till the 4th of July, ’76, had the right of all to the 
enjoyment of equal rights been endorsed by a nation. 
It may have before been entertained by individuals, but 
it was then for the first time^not only proclaimed, but 
acted upon. Eight years of relentless war carried on by 
a distant colony, not for sovereignty of territory, but fro 
sovereignty of manhood, received its final consumation 
17th Sept, 1787. History, since then, has proved that 
struggle to have been indeed a revolution, and not mere¬ 
ly a successful rebellion. 

The United States have not lacked for imitators. 
Look at Mexico and the South American Republics, and 
like all efforts that are merely imitations they have proved 
failures, and Avhy? They like the United States estab- 
li hed direct representation ; has that made them self- 
governing? Why not ? For the leaders of a people to 


36 


proclaim that the nation is free, self-governing will not 
make them so. There never has been and never will be 
so long as the world stands, one single instance where a 
nation has become self-governing simply by pr<)clamation- 
There must first be a general equality as regards capac¬ 
ity for national self-government before it can exist, even 
for a day. 

There is no more perpetual motion in government than 
there is in machine]y ; it is true it may be set in motion, 
but it cannot be brought into line with wheels and bands 
and kept agoing ; the motive power must be applied 
di ectly and without the least intermi sion ; there cannot 
be a pause, it wi 1 prove a retrogade motion. 

Let us see how the priciples w^e have laid dowm apply 
to Mexico and the South American Republics. In w^hat 
proportion do the elements of government exist in them? 
All will recognize the existence of the physical and tho 
moral el ments, but where is tlie mental element. AVhere 
iire the public schools, the family newspaper; where, in 
short, is the general education pervading tlie masses. 
It is w’anting, and consequently^ any attempt at national 
self-government w^orthy the name, is also wanting. 

It will always be found that the strength of the physical 
and the religious elements combined, will be in proportion 
to the lach of the mental element; hence the conflict and 
the struggle for liberty from the Christian era until the 
present. 

Having seen the nature of the equality^ needed in order 
to a true faithful representation ; it remains to be seen 
by wdiat means that equality is to be attained. 

First and foremost is, Christianity. Not merely as one 
of the elements of government, but as a principle pervad¬ 
ing the whole. True, as being the embodyrnent of the 
religious element, it has its distinctive features and con¬ 
sequently its distinctive offices to perform ; but it is far 
more than this. When true to itself, it controls and 


37 


dignifies the physical element, and directs and purifies 
the mental. It is the leaven pervading the whole lump. 
It is this, more than anything else, which makes the 
difference between the physical strength of the savage, 
and the physical strength of the Christian warrior ; be¬ 
tween a King Phillip and a Havelock; between the 
mass}i«*re of St. Bartholomew and the soul-inspiring de¬ 
fence of William of Orange and his associate martyrs. 

It is generally considered that under a free government 
no religious test should ever be required as a qualifica¬ 
tion to any office. If religion there means Christianity, 
which it undoubtedly does, does it then follow that a 
person is a fit candidate for office who does not believe 
in the doctrines of Christianity. The effect of requiring 
no religious test whatever, is not only seen in the lack of 
principle of many holders of office, but spreads itself 
through society. That which is permitted in the highest 
cannot of course, be condemned in the lowest, and the 
effects of this are manifest, not only in the multitude of 
beliefs, but in the countenance given to infidel tendencies 
as seen in the press, in public speakets, and, with sadness 
be it spoken, in too many professed teachers of the 
Gospel. Instead of the public voice declaring that it 
makes no difference whether or not public men believe in 
the Bible, it should be declared in a voice too loud to be 
misuuderstocd, that an infidel patriot is a solceism of 
terms. 

Next in importance in attaining to the desired equality 
is education. Except Christianity, there is nothing 
which tends more to regulate conduct than general in¬ 
telligence. In a nation where all have equal rights it is 
not necessary that all should have equ 1 capacity. All 
cannot be presidents nor executives of any name, but 
each one can and should possess such a knowledge otthe 
rinliments of learning with integrity and moral courage 
to guide them in tho application, that like the Prussian 


38 


army after its defeat by the first Napoleon, the force in 
the fietd may be only an ind x of the corps de reserve. 
Let such be the condition of things and the masses will 
not be slow to perceive any peculiar fitness of an individ¬ 
ual for any particular line of duty. 

We have thus very briefly touched upon the principles 
upon which is based r( presentation in whatever form it 
may manifest itself. We have seen that every form of 
government is, to a certain degree, a representation of 
the people. 

We have seen the touch-stone by which representation 
acconling to the population should be tested, namely, 
equality between the people and the representative ; that 
any system which does not recognize this fundamental 
truth, will, if carried to an extreme, be seen to be opposed 
to national self-government, whether that extreme tend 
to barbarism or to an enervating civilization. We have 
seen the nature of that equality, that it consists not 
merely in the recognition of the universal brotherhood, 
but of the universal manhood of man. 

We have seen Christianity and e^lucation necessary, 
not only to the existence of that equality but entering 
into its very nature, so that whatever tends to destroy 
the due proportions of either, destroys that equalit}^ and 
consequently makes national self-government an impos¬ 
sibility. 

I have thus brought to a conclusion, a very brief and 
imperfect synopsis of what I would w^ite as the History 
of Liberty. 

Though the subject is w^ell nigh too full for utterance- 
being as it is the consumation of all that earth can give, 
it includes them all—the thoughts which it breathes must 
find expression. Were I to pause and consider the com¬ 
prehensiveness of the work, I might w^ellstop before pro¬ 
ceeding further. 

“ Though declamation and eloquence in all ages have 


exhausted their store upon this favorite theme, yet rea¬ 
son has made so little progress in ascertaining the nature 
and boundaries of liberty, that there are very few authors 
indeed, either of this or of any o‘her country, which can 
furnish the studious arul seiious reader with a clear and 
consistent account of this idol of mankind.”* 

Is it true that Liberty is above that reason which alone 
can comprehend its nature, and thus point out those 
principles the adoption of which will secure the posses¬ 
sion of Liberty? In other words, is Liber'y, though it 
be universally regarded as the greatest of earthly bless¬ 
ings, above and beyond the highest temporal attribute 
of that very being for whose benefit the blessing is con¬ 
ferred ? Were it so, well would it have been had God 
denied the boon to mankind, for then would the fabled 
Tantalus have indeed been a reality, and God, while offer¬ 
ing to us the greatest of earthly possessions, would have 
palsied the hand that w^ould grasp it. 

But, thank Goi', it is not so. 

History in genera! should be so written that the read¬ 
er cannot tell to what nation the author belongs, but it 
is impossible for one to write the history of Liberty 
whose whole nature is not imbued with its inspiration. 

It matters little whether or not I finish the work be¬ 
gun, it will be accomplished. Some one will be found 
to whom the task will indeed be a labor of love. 

Having an understanding of its principles, we shall be 
enabled so to carry them out, that our earthly Liberty 
will receive its full and final consumation in that Liberty 
ythereirith (-hrinf hath made us free. 


* Blaekstoue, p. 12(5, Of tlie Kigbts of Persons. Ed. note. 



'■ ■v'if.'ijfti'ihrr 1 

A; \ '* ’r'i 4 I h) 

: ' ■ ; ^ , i 

' ■ -> V * • '*.[!■. 

Wvv.i V * . ■ r . %|J 

, -C 

i: ■■,■,<> > . rj; •< 'i 

itt> ./'•)./? .,. '<• •, .‘■‘VlVXfS 

E, ■■ J»“ ? A J I fil ‘ \>it> J. '*if.■ ;Vl 

L A).' i/i (>f ,iiV)fM.ixr, i* 

K. ^ ’ ^>d 

I'' ' •' ■ ■ ' ' 

pl^ u -it: : ,.'^-.•.■^'fi ( ^ liimiiS 

>'>• ' w-'H'-.i' Wi',-.^f . •,. ■ . 

^ .f»4'■ I ■■ ,■ > i 

jjj^f''' ' ^ ' UJ. 'Hi(,;b I ■ - V, ■' 

Ip)., O '. ... •> ^ 

. • .fm>i V. f..!.i!'. • ■ V'MU i'l. ■ M .:•■ 

■ Ori iinill ^ ^ ) j-tftl.r*:. > ■■ ,^ i)t; j'tf’d di 

'.^iricfiv l vj«'.'Ti<'‘«'ttio U:.*' ))ux :T t-r v»j*fit' i ■ 

V v^.k\ j/i ’ L'j lUjit.iAiii ijoo fjia« f,. /I |{<ti •' 4 -^*1 

J’V '. . '•'. -^ y - 

****''#ifffSt^-ii 


• I' ; ■»*.•>> i-’- . ■ ., ' •■' y 









LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 027 119 759 7 


